Heinicke v. Industrial Claim Appeals off.

Decision Date04 September 2008
Docket NumberNo. 07CA1640.,07CA1640.
Citation197 P.3d 220
PartiesAnn HEINICKE, Petitioner, v. INDUSTRIAL CLAIM APPEALS OFFICE of the State of Colorado, King Soopers Inc., and Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Respondents.
CourtColorado Court of Appeals
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
16 cases
  • Dami Hospitality, LLC v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office of Colo.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • February 23, 2017
    ...fact finder enters an order that is unsupported by the evidence or misapplies or is contrary to the law. Heinicke v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office , 197 P.3d 220, 222 (Colo. App. 2008). As has been so often stated, discretion is abused when the decision "is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable,......
  • City of Brighton & Cirsa v. Rodriguez
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • February 3, 2014
    ...Submitted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 759 P.2d 17, 22 (Colo.1988); see also Heinicke v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 197 P.3d 220, 223 (Colo.App.2008) (noting that a right to workers' compensation benefits does not arise “[w]here causation cannot be established”). ¶ ......
  • Markus v. Brohl
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • October 23, 2014
    ...due deference to the interpretation of a statute by the agency charged with its enforcement. See, e.g., Heinicke v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 197 P.3d 220, 222 (Colo.App.2008). Ultimately, "[a]n agency's view [of the law] is ... relevant, but its construction is advisory, not binding" on......
  • Youngs v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office of Colo.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • April 11, 2013
    ...order is beyond the bounds of reason, as where it is unsupported by the evidence or contrary to law.” Heinicke v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 197 P.3d 220, 222 (Colo. App. 2008). ¶41 Here, the AUJ ruled that feeling and examining claimant’s shoulder were not relevant to the hearing’s issue......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT